VA A330 SYD or MEL to AKL - viable?

VA A330 SYD or MEL to AKL - viable? possible?

On anyones wish list?

(after SYD-HKG of course! :-p

If Air NZ can manage 787s and 777s surely a VA a330 on the route would work. The problem is that VA only have 6 a330s in their fleet, limiting their number of routes. VA should order some more 777s and a330s for international expansion, right now VA's international network is a joke.

i do agree with the last part of your post..VAs (widebody) int network is a joke..but don't expect much to change..  VA int is and always will be a 'boutique' arm. VA is a 'narrowbody' airline, and the only reason they have widebodies is to mildly annoy QF lol..  My 2cents worth :)

VA's international network is actually quite decent. From a frequent flyer perspective, being able to earn and burn on partner airlines like SQ, EY and NZ exactly the same as you could flying VA metal, you're covered most of the globe. 

Isn't going to happen. For both they need more planes, more crew = more money they don't want to spend. If you're in Velocity just choose codeshare NZ flight if you must have widebody. For HKG it's just pointless - why go up against CX? 

Surely leasing additional, of a type they already have in their fleet, shouldn't add a significant expenditure that make it unviable?

Or, on a separate note, why would they choose Fiji over any of the other more suitable options?

(ps don't mind that it is Fiji as am off their, on their A332 in J next month)

The crew requirements for each additional aircraft is a huge part of the expense. (Why do you think QF has Jetconnect for TT?). It just isn't that simple. Plus it's a lot more seats to fill.

My usual answer to all these "Why doesn't xxx do yyy?" is that if there was a business case to do so, and regulatory approval - it would already be done. 

Indeed. Also, as I always say, the motivations for all these fleet decisions come from vast spreadsheets full of numbers which none of us will ever get to see, analysed by a bunch of clever people who do nothing all day except stare at those spreadsheets.

If you want an explanation as to why flying A330s across the Tasman isn't viable at the moment you won't get a better one than "computer says no". 

Certainly no viability for SYD-HKG

I beg to differ for HKG.There are those of us who are Velocity Members where using Cathay Pacific is not an option at all.

If you really want to stick with Velocity fly SQ via Singapore, SYD-HKG would be very hard for VA, 4x a day Cathay Pacific a330/777 and 11 weekly Qantas flights on the a380/747/a330 is really harsh competition. VA could only make it work if they decide to codeshare with Cathay, and that will most likely never happen.

I agree with Franz. You can't possibly justify HKG via SNG just to wreap the benefits of your status. I'd rather loiter in a food court for 2 hours than add an extra 5 hours onto my journey.

I would argue a daily SYD > HKG would be more viable for VA than QF ramping up their service. The OW clientele is well serviced to HK and through to Europe, an additonal QF service doesn't have a point of differentiation from the already very well served network unless you're a Qantas FF heading to HKG (not beyond). VA would only need to make good of one flight of circa 240 pax (A332) or 360 pax (B773) each way with Virgin Atlantic connections through to London.

Statements above about them being a narrow body airline with a domestic network are largelt true. But if sustainable growth that doesn't burn their virtual network partners is on the radar, then HKG looks good from my armchair.

Not enough widebodied fleet available!